In the Court of Joint District Judge, Second Court, Dhaka

Other Suit No. 01 of 2014

Plaintiff:
Md. Salauddin
Versus
Defendant:
Mridha Mehedi Azam and another
Written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1:
1.

That the suit is not maintainable in its present form.

2.

That the suit is barred by limitation.

3.

That there is no cause of action of the suit.

4.
That the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and as such he does not deserve the
discretion of the court.
5.
That the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree of specific performance as he took
an unfair advantage over the defendant in execution of the contract for sale.
6.
That the performance of the contract would involve hardship on the defendant No. 1
which he did not foresee at the time of execution of the contract for sale.
7.

That the non-performance of the contract would involve no hardship on the plaintiff.

8.
That the statements which are not specifically admitted by this defendant No. 1 shall
be deemed to have been denied by him.
9.
That regard to this statement made in paragraph No. 1 of the plaintiff, it is stated that
those are partly true. It is further stated that taking an unfair advantage the plaintiff got the
contract for sale executed.
10.

That the statements made in paragraph No. 2 of the plaint is true.

11.
That the statements made in paragraph No. 3 is not correct and are denied by the
defendant. It is not true that in the last half of January, 2014, the plaintiff asked the
defendant No. 1 to receive the consideration money and to execute and register the sale
deed, or that the defendant No. 1 on various pretext avoided the plaintiff, or that on
15.02.2014 the plaintiff served a legal notice to the defendant No. 1 requesting him to
execute and register the sale deed in his favour.
12.
That the statements made in paragraph No. 4 are not true. It is not true that the
plaintiff was always ready to pay the defendant No. 1 the balance of the consideration
money.
13.
That the statement made in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint regarding the cause of
action of the suit is not correct.
14.

That the valuation statement made in paragraph No. 6 is not correct.

15.
That the real fact is that the suit property is the only homestead of the defendant. In
July, 2013 the mother of the defendant No. 1 became seriously ill and she was suffering
from cancer. For the treatment of his mother in Singapore the defendant No. 1 having no
other source of money decided to sell the property. As a close friend of the defendant No. 1

he requested the plaintiff to make arrangement for sale of the property at the market price.
But the plaintiff taking this unfair advantage over the defendant No. 1 managed to get
executed and registered the contract for sale of the suit property at a very lower price than
the prevailing market value. At that time the market value of each katha of land was more
than fifty lacs. Moreover the suit property is the only homestead of the defendant No. 1
which he did not foresee at the time of execution and registration of the contract for sale. If a
decree is passed for specific performance of contract then the defendant No. 1 will be
thrown to the street and he will be homeless. Since the plaintiff has taken an unfair
advantage on the defendant No. 1 in executing and registering the contract for sale and the
suit property is the only homestead of the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any
decree of the specific performance of contract. The suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Verification:
That the statements made in the written
statement is true to my knowledge and belief
and I put my signature on it in the chamber of
my learned lawyer on this day of 22nd May,
2014.
Signature